Proposed New Designated Hitter Rule for Both Leagues

[JB_Iowa]

I honestly enjoy the duality as it makes for two different brands of baseball coming together each October, but it frustrates me the way people attack one side or the other of the issue.

 

AMEN!!

[gil4]

  On 1/26/2015 at 1:48 AM, Linus said:

As usual, I am the contrarian, I guess.  I hate the DH and consider it one of the few mistakes baseball has made with its rule changes.  I love the strategy of the NL and the decisions a manager has to make.

 

I get that watching pitchers hit isn't all that exciting but watching them lay down a bunt or not, and the resulting play is much more exciting than watching Pedro Florimon or Drew Butera hit (or I dare say Aaron Hicks).....

 

So you prefer to let them walk Florimon or Butera to let the pitcher attempt to bunt?

[TheLeviathan]

  On 1/26/2015 at 11:27 PM, biggentleben said:

I watch a LOT of baseball, and you can say there's not strategy in the NL like I can say there's no strategy in AL, but we'd both be wrong. 

 

I think you know what people are saying though.  The first argument out of anyone's mouth in defense of the NL not having a DH is that it has a "special" brand of baseball with more "strategy".

 

Sure, in a literal sense of the word "strategy", they both do have that.  But is the brand of the NL really all that special?  Is it worth the obnoxious at-bats of pitchers hitting?  If you don't like people dismissing it - tell me what is so sacred that's worth protecting?

 

I'd contend the case against pitchers batting is pretty rock solid and shouldn't need to be laid out.

[Willihammer]

  On 1/26/2015 at 7:24 PM, mike wants wins said:

What's snarky about that? 

 

there are three terrible at bats by pitchers, then they sub 1 or 2 times, and they sub with generally bad hitters.

 

Are those not facts?

 

For me, nothing about that is exciting, not one bit.

I disagree. I love the change of pace that the bunt play and small ball in general brings to a game - IF it makes sense to put those plays on. There are fewer instances where it makes sense to do that in the AL whereas those first 3 PA's by a starting pitcher are frequently going to provide an opportunity. And when the bases are empty or it doesn't make sense to lay down a unt, I enjoy watching pitchers try to hit, although I do wish more pitchers took it seriously and weren't too cool for school about running hard to first base, that is annoying.

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 2:07 AM, TheLeviathan said:

I think you know what people are saying though.  The first argument out of anyone's mouth in defense of the NL not having a DH is that it has a "special" brand of baseball with more "strategy".

 

Sure, in a literal sense of the word "strategy", they both do have that.  But is the brand of the NL really all that special?  Is it worth the obnoxious at-bats of pitchers hitting?  If you don't like people dismissing it - tell me what is so sacred that's worth protecting?

 

I'd contend the case against pitchers batting is pretty rock solid and shouldn't need to be laid out.

 

I believe the NL strategy is perfectly made for the current game, as seen by the Giants and Royals in the World Series in 2014.  Focusing on moving runners over and encouraging contact over power is the best way to score runs in today's game.  Pitchers that actually take their hitting serious (like Willihammer mentioned) are incredibly valuable.  The Braves scored tons of runs in the Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz era due to the dedication the pitchers had to the art of bunting.  The pitching staff member with the most sacrifices each year would get free dinner at a group dinner after the season.  The Braves in that era often put a second "leadoff" guy at 8 in the order, allowing the pitcher to move him over into scoring position for the top of the lineup.

 

Many managers have little to no idea how to use their pitcher slot in the lineup, and that is a big part of it.  The current Braves have a manager who certainly doesn't utilize his pitchers well in the lineup, and it frustrates me no end.

[TheLeviathan]

  On 1/27/2015 at 3:09 AM, biggentleben said:

I believe the NL strategy is perfectly made for the current game, as seen by the Giants and Royals in the World Series in 2014.  Focusing on moving runners over and encouraging contact over power is the best way to score runs in today's game.  

 

Why do you have to have a pitcher bat to do this?

[DocBauer]

Man, if I knew how to use the multi-quote thingy I'd be going nuts about now!  LOL

 

Personally, I am very much in favor of the NL DH rule. I have, at many times, enjoyed the "NL brand of baseball" in regard to strategy. But in of my years watching and enjoying  ML baseball, NL "strategy" has very, very, very seldom had ANYTHING to do with the pitcher hitting.

 

First off, other than late in a close game, is there REALLY any strategy involving a pitcher hitting? Honestly, most all pitchers make Drew Butera look like Ruth/Mays etc. So all game long you have the SP bunt unless there are 2 outs, then you hope and pray for an error or a fluke looper/dying quail over someone's head. Later, in a close game, you have to decide if you pull one of the absolute worst hitters on your team for another hitter to replace him and bring in a reliever. And the depth and edge of your seat nervous excitement is what now????

 

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, all of my years growing up and watching baseball, the NL parks were larger than the AL parks, there always seemed to be more turf fields than grass fields between the leagues, and the NL relied more on speed, defense, pitching and situational hitting while the AL, with smaller parks and more grass fields, relied more on station to station OB% and power. THAT was the strategy difference between the leagues.

 

College has the DH. Milb has the DH. Being a pitcher is a specialty. It's like asking a QB to block and tackle. Like asking a hockey goalie to skate and score. Like asking a soccer player to be tough and not flop. (snicker)

 

I could easily argue there is more strategy in having the DH in both leagues. Knowing you don't have to have a weak hitting SP in the lineup, I now, as a manger, have to concentrate even more on late game pitching battles and matchups. I have the luxury of playing a defensive specialist and hitting him lower in my lineup. I have to ponder if pinch hitting for my DH late in the game is a wise choice given that I would THEN have to expose my pitcher to attempt to hit. As a team manager, I might be even more inclined to bunt and play hit and run baseball knowing I have someone up at the plate who can actual handle a bat as something more than a urinal basher.

 

Whatever. My opinion.

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 3:29 AM, TheLeviathan said:

Why do you have to have a pitcher bat to do this?

 

You don't have to.  Many hitters, however, are too prideful to lay down the bunt, nevermind the way SABR-minded folks would attack a manager for having their cleanup hitter bunt. The other end of things is that pitchers have tons of non-pitching time on their non-throwing days to work on bunting to get to the point where they're experts (something the old Braves starters used to work to a T).

[The Wise One]

  On 1/26/2015 at 6:09 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

There isn't much strategy in the NL game most of the time. It's the same routine over and over again. Yeah, once a blue moon you'll see something interesting happen with double switches but that will be more than offset by replacing .500 OPS hitters with .750 OPS hitters in NL lineups on a daily basis.

League average  OPS for the NL pitcher was  .312. Only a fewstarting  pitchers in the NL had an OPS over .500

[TheLeviathan]

  On 1/27/2015 at 4:10 AM, biggentleben said:

You don't have to.  Many hitters, however, are too prideful to lay down the bunt, nevermind the way SABR-minded folks would attack a manager for having their cleanup hitter bunt. The other end of things is that pitchers have tons of non-pitching time on their non-throwing days to work on bunting to get to the point where they're experts (something the old Braves starters used to work to a T).

So basically you like bunts so much you want feeble guys in wind breakers at the plate to see them? That's not particularly compelling.

[USAFChief]

  On 1/27/2015 at 4:10 AM, biggentleben said:

You don't have to.  Many hitters, however, are too prideful to lay down the bunt, nevermind the way SABR-minded folks would attack a manager for having their cleanup hitter bunt. The other end of things is that pitchers have tons of non-pitching time on their non-throwing days to work on bunting to get to the point where they're experts (something the old Braves starters used to work to a T).

Many Hitters are too prideful to lay down a bunt??

 

I dispute that, but if they are, that would have nothing at all to do with a DH rule, unless your point is that having a hitter in the lineup incapable of doing anything BUT bunting is a good thing.

 

I also don't think many managers would have their cleanup hitter sacrificing very often, new school, old school, worried about what the SABR folks would say, or not.

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 12:16 PM, TheLeviathan said:

So basically you like bunts so much you want feeble guys in wind breakers at the plate to see them? That's not particularly compelling.

 

Yeah, because that's exactly what I just said...

[USAFChief]

As for the DH, I like it, but I could live with it going away, too. I DO think both major leagues should play under the same rules, particularly in this day and age where there really aren't two leagues. There is basically two divisions in one league.

 

Watching a team make the WS and play half the games under a different set of rules than they used to get there cheapens the competition, IMO.

[JB_Iowa]

Add 2 teams and eliminate interleague play.

 

I used to enjoy interleague play when it was limited to a certain period of time.  Now it is just s jumbled mess.  There is nothing special about it,

 

I like the need to excel under both systems in the WS,  Hope to someday see Molitor use those "smarts" in the WS..

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 2:10 PM, JB_Iowa said:

Add 2 teams and eliminate interleague play.

 

I used to enjoy interleague play when it was limited to a certain period of time.  Now it is just s jumbled mess.  There is nothing special about it,

 

I like the need to excel under both systems in the WS,  Hope to someday see Molitor use those "smarts" in the WS..

 

I'll agree with this.  I grew up without interleague play, but I absolutely prefer the 15 interleague games or so each year all packed into a couple weeks of the year over the current format.  Las Vegas and Charlotte both have big baseball fan bases that could quickly support a team.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Ban interleague play? So the vast majority of fans can't see players in other leagues in person? I have no idea how that is a good idea.

[nicksaviking]

The NL should switch to using a DH simply so my favorite team stops getting fooled by free agent arms who's stats are inflated by getting to face a pitcher three times a game. 

[JB_Iowa]

  On 1/27/2015 at 2:23 PM, mike wants wins said:

Ban interleague play? So the vast majority of fans can't see players in other leagues in person? I have no idea how that is a good idea.

 

You don't have to ban it but limiting the time frame makes it special,  As it is now, its just another team.

 

And how many fans really see them in person anyway rather than on TV?   Not a majority I would guess,

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 2:23 PM, nicksaviking said:

The NL should switch to using a DH simply so my favorite team stops getting fooled by free agent arms who's stats are inflated by getting to face a pitcher three times a game. 

 

Best pro-DH argument so far! LOL

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 2:23 PM, mike wants wins said:

Ban interleague play? So the vast majority of fans can't see players in other leagues in person? I have no idea how that is a good idea.

 

Not banned, but limited.  In college, I remember I could get into any game I wanted because the Twins were terrible, plus the stadium was a quick walk from the U of M campus and for $5 I could get into the game and have 2 hot dogs.  Even with prices like that, games were usually me hanging out with my 3,000-5,000 best friends.  EXCEPT when stars came to town.  When Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds came to town, the place was packed.  When Greg Maddux or Pedro (pre-Red Sox) was on the mound, the place was packed.  It was an event, even in fairweather Minnesota with a terrible team.  Now, it's lost that intrigue and special aspect of seeing guys from the other league up close and personal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I also preferred Interleague being an event instead of a constant throughout the season. I understand why they changed it; having 14 teams in one league and 16 in the other made no sense.

 

I hope that MLB is able to expand relatively soon and fix this somewhat annoying problem.

[TheLeviathan]

  On 1/27/2015 at 12:40 PM, biggentleben said:

Yeah, because that's exactly what I just said...

 

Clarify then, because from what I read every one of your arguments seems to be defending bunting.  Or that you want bunting to continue.   Here is what you said:  

 

1)  Hitters are "too prideful" - so is it your contention you need guys so bad at hitting that they don't worry about pride and therefore bunt more?

 

2) Something about managers having their cleanup hitters bunt....is that happening in the NL?  If not, I'm not sure how this distinction matters unless you want to keep a certain type of hitter in the lineup expressly for bunting.

 

3)  You credited all the non-throwing time pitchers have to bunt.

 

I'm confused how you can make that thesis, use those arguments, and then bristle at the notion that you really just want no DH so that you see more bunting from guys so disinterested in being a hitter that they rarely run and mostly stand around in wind-breakers on the base paths.

[Mike Sixel]

  On 1/27/2015 at 3:18 PM, biggentleben said:

Not banned, but limited.  In college, I remember I could get into any game I wanted because the Twins were terrible, plus the stadium was a quick walk from the U of M campus and for $5 I could get into the game and have 2 hot dogs.  Even with prices like that, games were usually me hanging out with my 3,000-5,000 best friends.  EXCEPT when stars came to town.  When Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds came to town, the place was packed.  When Greg Maddux or Pedro (pre-Red Sox) was on the mound, the place was packed.  It was an event, even in fairweather Minnesota with a terrible team.  Now, it's lost that intrigue and special aspect of seeing guys from the other league up close and personal.

 

how does that happen if it is limited? If we go back to the old way, most stars didn't come here, because we got crappy interleague teams......

 

That's my point, you want the stars, every one of them, to visit as many stadiums as possible. Limiting interleague does NOT do that.

 

to the point that interleague games should be "special", why? No other US sport does that*.

 

*the NFL has to, because it only has 16 games, but even there, I am guaranteed to see me team play every team at least every 4 years ON FREE TV or in person.

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 4:39 PM, TheLeviathan said:

 

I'm confused how you can make that thesis, use those arguments, and then bristle at the notion that you really just want no DH so that you see more bunting from guys so disinterested in being a hitter that they rarely run and mostly stand around in wind-breakers on the base paths.

 

We'll not address the erroneous simplifying of my true points.

 

My point is exactly opposite of what you stated.  Sacrifices are not just bunts.  They often require as much hitting skill as any 40-homer guy possesses.  Teams that don't put in an atmosphere requiring their pitchers to put in the time and effort to be excellent at moving runners are what I'm saying is the issue.  Maddux, for instance, was masterful hitting behind a guy on 2nd base because he was excellent at pushing a ball to the right side on the ground, which often was swinging away and making that contact, not just bunting.

[biggentleben]

  On 1/27/2015 at 5:23 PM, mike wants wins said:

how does that happen if it is limited? If we go back to the old way, most stars didn't come here, because we got crappy interleague teams......

 

That's my point, you want the stars, every one of them, to visit as many stadiums as possible. Limiting interleague does NOT do that.

 

to the point that interleague games should be "special", why? No other US sport does that*.

 

*the NFL has to, because it only has 16 games, but even there, I am guaranteed to see me team play every team at least every 4 years ON FREE TV or in person.

 

I am pretty sure you're misremembering.  Just like the NFL, each division rotated interleague, plus you always played your National League counterpart division.  For the Twins, that meant every year they faced Bagwell, Biggio, Pujols, Sosa, McGwire, Braun, Fielder, Junior Griffey, and others each season along with a rotation that would come through depending on the division.  When you can see Sammy Sosa at the height of his glory every season, it's not that big an event.  When you only get to see Barry Bonds once every four years, folks come out for that, and they did heavily.

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 1/27/2015 at 3:09 AM, biggentleben said:

I believe the NL strategy is perfectly made for the current game, as seen by the Giants and Royals in the World Series in 2014.

I thought it highlighted how bad the pitcher batting is.  For every interesting bunt / double switch situation, there were a couple interesting rallies killed by the near-automatic out.

 

And that's in the most important games of the year.  How interesting is it when a SP comes to the plate in the third inning in from April through September?

 

I generally consider myself a traditionalist, opposing interleague play, modern offense, and once upon a time the DH too -- but I've come to the conclusion that pitchers batting just sucks.

 

It would be great if pitchers generally didn't have to bat, but once in a great while, a team with a good-hitting pitcher had a strategy reward for using them -- maybe they are allowed to bat the DH in place of a different fielder if they want, or the team could be allowed to retain its DH if it moved him to the mound or something...

[twinsfanstreif]

Like it or not the DH rule is here and it's infiltrated itself into all levels of baseball. This is the problem with the NL not having it, I know the history and the strategy stuff and that's legit. The problem lies in pitchers have been specialists most of their lives so these guys are coming up to the majors and they're supposed to hit for the first time since little league and it's against ML pitching. Back in the day this wasn't the case but today it is and that's why the NL needs to adopt the DH rule. As to the original post, I get the sentiment in trying to create that strategy aspect but your proposal is way too complicated, frankly I don't think I fully got it. Whether we like it or not Baseball is on the decline in America because of the take over of Football and we don't want to complicate the sport any more for the casual fan, we want casual fans to enjoy it. I know us hardcore baseball fans don't want to hear that but it's better for the business which is better for us

[ashbury]

  On 1/27/2015 at 4:02 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I also preferred Interleague being an event instead of a constant throughout the season. I understand why they changed it; having 14 teams in one league and 16 in the other made no sense.

 

I hope that MLB is able to expand relatively soon and fix this somewhat annoying problem.

Contraction also makes the numbers come out.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  On 1/27/2015 at 8:39 PM, ashburyjohn said:

Contraction also makes the numbers come out.

Stop it, you're making BIlly Beane nervous.

[TheLeviathan]

  On 1/27/2015 at 5:45 PM, biggentleben said:

We'll not address the erroneous simplifying of my true points.

 

My point is exactly opposite of what you stated.  Sacrifices are not just bunts.  They often require as much hitting skill as any 40-homer guy possesses.  Teams that don't put in an atmosphere requiring their pitchers to put in the time and effort to be excellent at moving runners are what I'm saying is the issue.  Maddux, for instance, was masterful hitting behind a guy on 2nd base because he was excellent at pushing a ball to the right side on the ground, which often was swinging away and making that contact, not just bunting.

 

If sacrifices are not just bunts, then why were all of your examples about bunts?  Also - how many pitchers are utilizing sacrifice hits?  I assume the stats bear out that this happens frequently enough to justify a bunch of .300 OPS strikeout padders?

 

I'm fine with small ball, but small ball can be played with a DH.  That's the part you need to explain - why is not having a DH absolutely necessary to play small ball?  If it's not, why are we wasting our time with pitcher batting?